KAREN L. LANDERS VS. MEDFORD FITNESS CENTERÂ (L-1391-14, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-2853-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Aug 17, 2017Background
- Karen Landers slipped and fell during a Zumba class at Medford Fitness Center after noticing drops of water and later feeling a damp/slippery area; she injured her right wrist and knee.
- The studio floor had been waxed/re-coated the week before; plaintiff said the floor was "shiny" but not perceptibly different when she danced.
- Plaintiff wiped some water with a paper towel about 15 minutes into class, did not notify the instructor, moved a few feet left, and slipped ~20 minutes later.
- An eyewitness testified the floor was "extremely slippery" and the studio was humid; the eyewitness also opined the wax and humidity made it slippery.
- Medford's manager inspected after the accident and reported seeing no moisture or substance on the floor and no other slips that month.
- Plaintiff sued for premises liability; she argued the mode-of-operation doctrine relieved her of proving actual or constructive notice. The trial court granted summary judgment for Medford. Appellate division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mode-of-operation doctrine applies to a slip in a supervised Zumba class | Landers: gym is a self-service operation; doctrine applies so notice need not be proved | Medford: the accident occurred in a supervised class area, not a self-service setting; doctrine inapplicable | Doctrine inapplicable — no nexus between self-service operations and accident in instructor-led class |
| Whether Medford had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition | Landers: moisture/dampness on floor caused the fall; actual or constructive notice can be inferred | Medford: no evidence employees knew of any hazard, no prior incidents, plaintiff wiped drops and moved locations | No actual or constructive notice shown; absence of notice is fatal to premises liability claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Prioleau v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, Inc., 223 N.J. 245 (2015) (limits mode-of-operation doctrine to self-service settings and requires nexus between self-service components and accident location)
- Nisivoccia v. Glass Gardens, Inc., 175 N.J. 559 (2003) (describes mode-of-operation doctrine and the duty to discover/remove hazards)
- Troupe v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 443 N.J. Super. 596 (App. Div. 2016) (constructive notice requires condition to exist long enough that defendant would have discovered it with reasonable diligence)
- Arroyo v. Durling Realty, LLC, 433 N.J. Super. 238 (App. Div. 2013) (mere existence of a dangerous condition does not establish constructive notice)